State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[LAWsy_ME]

Can you please provide a link to evidence of the statement above?

I am going to watch trial.....I believe it was in the statement made by the woman in Canada who was at one time engaged. I found it in the W/S documents page for this case.

 

[jrb0124]

I believe it was in the statement made by the woman in Canada who was at one time engaged.

This is the woman BC left for NC (who at the time lived in the same apartment complex I believe), I'm sure she bears no grudges and her statement is completely objective.

 

[Madeleine74]

Exactly, you are making the case for me. With BC (unlike JY) PD arrested without enough evidence, and State went to trial with a flimsy case. Why wouldn't they take more time to build a stronger case ala JY? There has to be a reason for it - and pressure is as good as any.

You're assuming the state believes this is a flimsy case. Just because it's not a strong forensic case doesn't automatically mean it's flimsy. People who watch CSI and think the real world operates that way expect something very different.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Can you please provide a link to evidence of the statement above?

I am going to watch trial.....I believe it was in the statement made by the woman in Canada who was at one time engaged to brad. She contacted AS when she found out that brad lied ( or forgot) her last name. I found it in the W/S documents page for this case.

 

[NCEast]

Is anyone else having problems with their abc go local feed today???

I did the first time I tried, it's working now.

 

[Madeleine74]

This is the woman BC left for NC (who at the time lived in the same apartment complex I believe), I'm sure she bears no grudges and her statement is completely objective.

Interesting way to nuance the facts. Quite the opposite, in fact. She left him. He stalked her. Facts seem to get nuanced quite a bit in this case--wonder why that is so.

 

[Danielle59]

Agreed that the router deal is critical. THE only thing that really could matter at this point - which is why I was scratching my head somewhat over the whole duck palaver yesterday. IMHO, that didn't prove anyone lied, only that they were saying what they thought to be true at the time and in the context give; it didn't prove a duck wasn't a murder weapon or was; it didn't do anything.
From MH's testimony, I could only conclude that he did get the ME letters mixed up, confusing mechanical engineer with medical examiner. I feel certain the prosecution let him go on as long as he did in order to make him look foolish. If his body language was any indication, he knew he looked foolish. I believe the prosecution wanted a physical embodiment of the SODDI'ers that are crawling out of the woodwork: someone unqualified to make an opinion, someone with a personal bias, someone who was quite vocal behind the anonymity of a computer monitor but squirming in public. To think the jury is blissfully ignorant of abundant theories is to live in an alternate universe.

I don't feel I'm in a place to second-guess Cummings either, or assume he's idiotic. I think he wanted to the jury to feel some irritation at the defense for what might be perceived at wasting the jury's time by being less interested in getting at the truth (which should not be something dodged by the defense, if their client is innocent) than in legal maneuverings.

The router is about all there is left of anything that isn't tainted with utter idiocy, gossip, posturing, and movie-of-the-week theories.

I am just going to address the bolded items, since the DBIers are so certain they have a lock on his guilt:

1. If the ducks are now of no consequence, why did Cummings say that it made all his witnesses look like liars and why have so many of the BDIers had so many theories based just on those Ducks that they were certain were relevant? Why did the prosecution? How can you now so easily dismiss what you were so sure of the day before by basically saying, "Oh, it was nothing. "

2. Don't all witnesses have a bias, regardless of which side they are on? Why is it bad one side is biased, but not bad another side is biased? Why do all people that aren't ready to convict him supposedly bad and biased?

 

[gracielee]

Pressure in the other direction on all of those but Ann Miller. No clue on her.

Had you read Amanda L's book on the Ann Miller case, you'd discover the police never let up on investigating Ann Miller. They had her dead to nuts and kept her under surveillance the entire time. The hold up was taking Willard's lawyer through the various stages of the court system in effort to get him to give up what his deceased client told him prior to committing suicide. That was the breaking point in that case.

 

[jrb0124]

You're assuming the state believes this is a flimsy case. Just because it's not a strong forensic case doesn't automatically mean it's flimsy. People who watch CSI and think the real world operates that way expect something very different.

I don't watch CSI (almost no TV for that matter), so that's not the source of my reasoning.

Keep in mind that the State did not even have the Google maps 'evidence' prior to arrest/indictment. That's the only thing IMO that gives the State's case any substance at all, so without it...

 

[Danielle59]

Really? How do you explain the 3+ yrs it took for Jason Young to be arrested? Or the 5+ years it took for Ann Miller to be arrested? Or the 2 - 3 yrs it took for that Aboroa guy to be arrested?

Different police departments and investigators, cases in general.

 

[jrb0124]

Interesting way to nuance the facts. Quite the opposite, in fact. She left him. He stalked her. Facts seem to get nuanced quite a bit in this case--wonder why that is so.

She left him, yet he moved right in with NC? You are taking her statement at face value - that's fine, but I am not nuancing the facts, just making a logical connection.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Where are they getting that the det. said anything about "jumping the median"? I never heard that before right now. I recall him testifying that it would be an illegal turn that you could get a ticket for.

 

[Madeleine74]

Kurtz can't conduct a cohesive direct this morning. Jury is seeing him floundering around on this.

 

[cityslick]

Where are they getting that the det. said anything about "jumping the median"? I never heard that before right now. I recall him testifying that it would be an illegal turn that you could get a ticket for.

He may be going off a report of JY. You're right, he didn't say that in court though.

 

[Danielle59]

I don't know about NC but I know it is true elsewhere. There was a case of a man fighting to not pay child support for a child after he and his wife divorced. DNA proved that he was not the father but the court ruled in the best interest of the child and said that a child born to a couple during a valid marriage is the child of the husband.

I agree with that overall, but I also think that the timing of the dispute may also play into it. You don't want to have a child be a pawn when they are older, older being once they recognize the man as the father, but if at birth it was disputed I think there may be times that it is considered.

 

[ncsu95]

Really? How do you explain the 3+ yrs it took for Jason Young to be arrested? Or the 5+ years it took for Ann Miller to be arrested? Or the 2 - 3 yrs it took for that Aboroa guy to be arrested?

Given that Cupper was arrested after 3 months, and seeing the overwhelming lack of evidence in this case, I have no idea why it took 3+ years to arrest Jason Young. But I don't think you can reasonably say any more that CW doesn't make arrests until they are have a slam dunk case. That was the theory when BC was arrested, but would simply be wrong to say any more.

 

[Madeleine74]

Given that Cupper was arrested after 3 months, and seeing the overwhelming lack of evidence in this case, I have no idea why it took 3+ years to arrest Jason Young. But I don't think you can reasonably say any more that CW doesn't make arrests until they are have a slam dunk case. That was the theory when BC was arrested, but would simply be wrong to say any more.

I don't think I ever thought or said a case would be a 'slam dunk.' It's always a risk taking a case to trial. CW has to feel very confident before he will move forward in a case, and believe he can prove that case to a jury. That's my opinion on him and the way he proceeds based on prior cases. And nothing in the Cupper case changes my opinion of that.

 

[ncsu95]

Uh oh, he is rolling through stop signs. Boz is going to be all over that.

 

[gritguy]

In JP's first police interview, he told police NC called him and asked to meet in person to discuss something. (On the stand, JP flipped it and said he was the one that wanted to meet in person). That may have no significance, but I thought it was interesting.

I wonder if JP's wife was planning to pull NC into this lawsuit too? Is it possible she wanted to show that both NC and HM should be sued for A of A?

One thing to know is that NC law allows an additional cause of action (I think we are the last state with it) called criminal conversation that allows suit against a 3rd party for sex with your spouse. It is "strict liabiity" in that no affections are required. If it happened, you are liable for whatever the jury decides, more or less, unless the cause was waived for some reason. Your own cheating is not a defense for the 3rd party. This cause of action is open even after physical separation. It is usually waived in a separation agreement. It catches many people off guard who think once they are in their new apartment, it's go time.

 

[cityslick]

Uh oh, he is rolling through stop signs. Boz is going to be all over that.

This guy gives me the impression he's been around the block a few times as far as testifying in trials.